Including and Having “Fun” with Users: Participatory Design and Games

Readings for Week 9: 4 March 2009
Information Manager post:

This week’s readings discuss the importance of and methods for including the user in the design process, particularly though cooperative/participatory design and games.

As I was reading, I became increasingly focused on how these articles could be applied to our research projects, and I couldn’t help but wonder whether having “fun” and including our research participants might encourage full responses/real cooperation from them or, as Bravo suggests, if by leaving the user out we might project bad or unintentional consequences on them. If our research/project/design seems boring or there is no compensation for participants, will we be able to cultivate real cooperation from them? What can we do to foster participation? How can participatory design be used as a research method for TC? How about with your particular research project?

Through example (“horror story after horror story”), Bravo explains the consequences for leaving out the users in clerical work environments, but I think her article rings true for technical communicators and other users as well. She suggests that leaving out the users in the design process is more than just being undemocratic: there are “serious consequences for worker health, human rights, job satisfaction, and also for the work process and the bottom line.” She cites examples of health hazards (eyestrain, headaches, carpal tunnel, stress, heart attacks, nervous breakdowns) as a result of poorly designed technologies and workplaces. She suggests that rethinking jobs in order to incorporate the team approach of participatory design in the decision making process between users and designers is the only way to reverse these consequences. She advises that management needs to allow users to be a part of the process, but that designers need to experience the work as well. She ends with a caution about the difference between making decisions and making suggestions and having power verses having the right to participate. She encourages the audience to let participation include decision making.

As designers and researchers, how might we include and empower our users and participants? How can they help us beyond participation alone? What are the hazards of not including the user in your project?

From the Bødker et al. article, we learn that participatory design was developed in Scandinavia during the 1970s and revised during the 1980s with a “second generation” of projects, of which the Utopia project is best known. From this project’s title, it seems clear that participatory design is considered a democratic philosophy (or ideal) as much as it is a set of techniques or a research method. It is an iterative design process that promotes cooperation between users and designers. The authors describe three techniques to involve users actively and creatively in the design of computer applications: future workshops, organizational games, and mock-up/prototype designs.

Future workshops are divided into three stages: critiques, fantasy, and implementation. The workshops provided participants with an opportunity to critique their current workplace via structured brainstorming; imagine “what if,” fantasy, or ideal work scenarios; and implement solutions. Participants were asked to collaborate in order to come to a collective or mutual understanding of the problems and essential changes. Management was left out of these workshops to encourage freedom of expression amongst the workers.

From the fantasy stage, ideas were taken from participants to create organizational games. According to Bødker et al., games must be: 1) meaningful and relevant, 2) fast and easy, 3) cheap and flexible, and 4) fun. They must also move “from the present situation, via an imagined future, back to reality.” On page 161, the article also mentions using “mock-ups or game-like design sessions.” This description rang a bell for me: “today, many of our techniques use fantasy and imagined futures to move from problems in the present specific setting to reality and specific actions.” This made me think of games and interfaces like Second Life that can be used for learning/knowledge purposes.

Mock-ups and collaborative prototypes serve as a way to learn about and explore the alternatives and fantasies uncovered during future workshops in a real setting. According to the authors, both of these methods work better than traditional approaches because users and designers, with their different qualifications, are actively and creatively involved in the design process. These methods encourage active (hands-on) user involvement, are familiar and easy for users to understand, are inexpensive, and are fun. They also are useful in educating future users who may then become teachers.

Would you be willing to use any of these methods? Why or why not? What are the potential weaknesses of user participation?

The article questions whether cooperative design can be applied in a North American setting, and leaves it to the reader to decide whether it does. What do you think?

One important section of the article discussed the obstacles to user involvement, such as resources, organizational structure and traditions, and conflicting interests. Bødker et al. suggest that, in order to obtain real cooperation, users must be rewarded in some way, either by monetary compensation, reduction in workload, education/knowledge gained, or expert assistance.

As designers and researchers, how do you plan to compensate your users and/or participants? What’s in it for them?

Baranich and Currie offer tips for using games in learning and business environments. Their article echoes the attributes of games from Bødker—that they must have a goal, an objective, a structure, challenges, a way to win, rules, fun, and afterward, a debriefing. They also suggest that games can provide both users and developers/instructors with real compensation: knowledge, motivation, and fun.

Have you ever used games to teach or conduct research? Provide examples.

Of the types of games they mention—icebreakers, simulations, puzzles, exercises—would you be willing to use any of these methods as a researcher? Why or why not?

And just for “fun,” here is an interesting article about Jane McGonigal, director of games research and development at the Institute for the Future, who is bridging entertainment, research, and business: http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/nov2008/id20081110_453173.htm